upgrade_object_storage

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare the mutation profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false). The description usefully explains that autoscaling buys capacity monthly up to a limit, which is real behavioral context beyond the annotations. It omits the billing consequence and irreversibility (no downgrade) that live in the schema, so a 3.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Short and front-loaded, but the opening phrase 'Upgrade object storage size' is immediately restated in the endpoint summary sentence, and the title repeats it a third time. Two sentences do the work of one.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a mutation tool with no output schema, the schema is fully described and the description explains the autoscaling concept the agent needs to set fields correctly. What is missing is the sibling disambiguation against update_object_storage, so not a 5.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100% and the nested body documents autoScaling.state, autoScaling.sizeLimitTB and totalPurchasedSpaceTB in detail, so baseline is 3. The description adds a small amount of directional meaning by tying autoscaling to a monthly purchase limit, which helps interpret sizeLimitTB.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource ('Upgrade object storage size') plus a secondary capability ('update autoscaling settings'), and pins the endpoint POST /v1/object-storages/{objectStorageId}/resize. That separates it from generic update_object_storage and retrieve_object_storage in the sibling list, though the distinction is implicit rather than stated.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies usage (increase capacity or adjust autoscaling) but never states when to pick this over update_object_storage, nor any prerequisite such as 'no downgrade possible' as a precondition to check before calling. Usage is inferable, not guided.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.